Talk:Rainham, London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rainham, London article.
Article policies
Good article Rainham, London was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Contents

[edit] Good Article Status Discussion

I think this is a nice, concise, and interesting article. The only issue I see for GA, is that the Lead paragraph could be longer. See Wikipedia:Lead section for suggestions. Is it possible to photograph one of the pre-historic sites? It's not necessary, but given the amount of text devoted to that topic, a picture would be a nice addition (assuming of course there's anything to photograph.) Appraiser 20:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the introduction slightly, I don't know if anyone wants to refine it further or if it'll do for good article status. Oh, and to be honest I don't think there's much prehistory to photograph. The book I used to source the info had some photos but they weren't good quality and I don't think it would be fair use to use them. Max naylor 11:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Need a source for the 30,000. MRSC • Talk 12:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The 30,000 was made up some time ago. I added it when I first came to Wikipedia, I was told it in a geography lesson. Using the National Statistics from to 2001 census, I found out the actual population of Rainham and Wennington and added to the article with a reference. Max naylor 12:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That's great. MRSC • Talk 16:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have e-mailed the person in charge of the RainhamWeb website, linked at the bottom of article, to see if we can use some of the pictures on the site. I don't know if the guy running the site owns the copyright, but he might be able to help us illustrate the article a little more. Max naylor 12:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Could the references have a last access date? It would neaten it up a bit. RHB 16:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GAC

  1. Well-written: Neutral
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Fail
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Neutral
  7. Images: Fail

Images- we start off with a dot next to a splotch in the infobox, I suppose that the splotch is London, but it's hard to tell. From there we go to a gallery(!) of broken images.

Well-referenced- the history section has no references besides the name references until the 20th century, with statements such as "hinted at" and "it is now believed".

Broad- other than the history, there is very little about Rainham. You have some discussion of the various railways and subways that go there, but not much else. What is in Rainham? A few offices and 12000 people, and that's all?

Overall, this article is B-class, but needs some work to get to GA. I see that it's now up for peer review, so I hope that goes well for you. --PresN 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As of 20/02/07, I have renominated the article for GA status as I have improved the article with a gallery of self-taken photographs, a 'demographics' and 'future' section. Please reconsider the prior decision. Max Naylor 14:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review (2nd nom)

I have unfortunately had to fail this article. From the look of the above, it has improved over the last nomination. Unfortunately, the article has referencing issues that I cannot overlook. The history section is almost entirely unreferenced. Please see WP:CITE and WP:ATT and WP:CITET for more information and help in fixing this problem. If these issues can be fixed, this article can and should be renominated, as it passes all other aspects of Good Article Criteria as listed at WP:WIAGA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Some additional help in citing the history section. Since the history section is cited from a single source, here is how I would recommend you cite it. Using the citation template {{cite book}} found at WP:CITET cite each paragraph or fact you wish to cite to the appropriate pages of the book in question. Thus, your text would look something like this:
Rainham is the coolest place in the world. <ref>{{cite book | last = Smith | first = John | title = Rainham, a History | publisher = Jane Doe Publishers, LLC. | date = 2000 | location = London | pages = 12-13 | ISBN =123456789X}}</ref> It was founded in 123 AD by monks. <ref>{{cite book | last = Smith | first = John | title = Rainham, a History | publisher = Jane Doe Publishers, LLC. | date = 2000 | location = London | pages = 27 | ISBN =123456789X}}</ref> In 1997, it held a really large party attended by the Queen. <ref>{{cite book | last = Smith | first = John | title = Rainham, a History | publisher = Jane Doe Publishers, LLC. | date = 2000 | location = London | pages = 275 | ISBN =123456789X}}</ref>
See, you cite the book for each fact (once at the end of each paragraph is fine) that way we know that each paragraph is in fact referenced to an appropriate source. Since it is a book, you can make each reference unique by citing the page numbers. The problem with NOT referencing each paragraph is it is impossible to tell whether the information is in the prior source, the last source, or entirely unsourced. An alternate way to do it is to use the ref name= tag, which will group the references into the same footnote. That would work like this:
Rainham is the coolest place in the world. <ref name=rainham>{{cite book | last = Smith | first = John | title = Rainham, a History | publisher = Jane Doe Publishers, LLC. | date = 2000 | location = London | ISBN =123456789X}}</ref> It was founded in 123 AD by monks. <ref name=rainham/>In 1997, it held a really large party attended by the Queen. <ref name=rainham/>
What that will do is put multiple references to the same footnote. Notice that I left off the pages since we are now simply referencing the whole book in multiple places. A third option is to direct footnote the websites and harvard reference (in footnote style with ref tags) the book. Look at today's featured article Cricket World Cup which does this VERY well. Any of those 3 options would work very well. Once that is done, renominate it again, and someone (me even, if you let me know) will review it again. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

Who keeps changing the headings to non-standard Wikipedia headings? What is the reason? Please refer to the style guide before making further changes. Max Naylor 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third GAC nomination

Third time lucky! I’ve now increased the amount of references in the history section after a short trip to the library, and the article is now punctuated with images. Hopefully it will pass this time! Max Naylor 15:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA comment

All inline citations go directly after the punctuation. --Nehrams2020 07:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

The article is well written and will pass once the following have been fixed:

  • Please provide a Fair Use Rationale for the Rainham Casino image. Y Done Max Naylor 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The every paragraph in the History section needs at least one citation.
  • There is an overuse of wikilinking throughout the article. Links to common words like food, pebbles, glass, schoolchildren etc. should be removed.
  • Can anymore be added to the history section on the 17th to 19th centuries?
All sources of history information have been exhausted, unfortunately. Max Naylor 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The years in the History section should either all be linked or all be unlinked. Y Done Max Naylor 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be made clearer what product is made by Tilda Rice (I assume it's rice). Y Done Max Naylor 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Lists are discouraged in town articles. The list of schools should be made into prose, with maybe a brief description of each of the secondary schools.
  • The phrase "dumping ground" should be replaced by something more encyclopedic
Any suggestions? Max Naylor 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Commerce section could be renamed Economy, and could incorporate the Future section.
I’m not sure about this; the information in the future section is not really relevant to Rainham’s economy. Max Naylor 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Are there any sports teams, museums, landmarks, etc. which could make up a Culture section?
Unfortunately there aren’t really any sports teams, and the closest thing to a museum is Rainham Library. Max Naylor 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me know once these have been fixed or if you disagree with any. The article's GA review will be placed on hold for a maximum of seven days. Thanks. Epbr123 10:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just the citations, lists and overlinking to sort out. Epbr123 13:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to fail the article. The seven days have now passed and not all the problems have been fixed. Epbr123 19:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education

In other areas the education section has been combined on the borough article (an example is Barking). Perhaps that could be done for Rainham/Havering. This will eliminate the lists from this article. MRSC • Talk 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've created a full list on the boro' article (from the Havering education site). I tend to prefer to see it under one place, but if there are notable local schools, then they should perhaps also be mentioned in this article. If they are notable, then more important to create articles for them. Kbthompson 10:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dumping ground

I saw a report on BBC London News where the local councillor said he felt Rainham was getting a bad deal from the London Riverside plans. I think the 'dumping ground' comment is more to do with Frog Island, London and a plan to build a site at Rainham that would process waste from a possible terrorist attack. The 'terror tip' as James Brokenshire MP calls it. [1] MRSC • Talk 22:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy section

“High profile retailer Ambience”? I don’t think this is correct. I’m removing this bit from the article unless a verifiable source is found. Max Naylor 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review (again)

One last go through to check the references, then I believe this could go forward for GA again. That would cover all the issues from the previous one. GA can be a bit of a moving target, but should pass. Kbthompson (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)